The Policy Governance Fieldbook, With General Editor Caroline Oliver

With writers Mike Conduff, Susan Edsall, Carol Gabanna, Randee Loucks, Denise Paszkiewicz, Catherine Raso, and Linda Stier.

Four out of ten stars

If I had to use one word to describe the emotions I felt reading this self described fieldbook, it would be unease. I am uneasy that John Carver signed off on this clumsy, contradictory extension of his work. At best, it's an easy read, easy because it only offers a few pieces of insight. But I find this book also confuses itself, and dilutes the rigor of policy governance with pop psychology platitudes. I had to give it four stars because I do find the subject fascinating, and I was excited by the potential of its form, which was to follow 11 examples of boards that adopted policy governance. This form was greatly underutilized, but I give partial marks for the idea! I also found the section on monitoring to be concrete and well-written.

In both this book and also Carver's Boards That Make a Difference, the examples can do the theory a disservice. It's super disorienting to read a framework, and then have the example contravene said framework. Neither books have good excuses for shoddy examples. I read the third edition of Carver's book, and Oliver & co. had 11 different boards to pick and chose from. Some of the choices, as I'll show below, are baffling.

As I will also show below, Oliver & co. seem to try and protect themselves from opinions by blanket statements. There are so many useless sentences in this book. I think it would be more effective and enjoyable at a quarter of its current length.

Finally, and maybe most glaringly, this book did not pull off having eight writers. In the preface, Oliver writes "Incredibly, throughout the writing of the book we have had only one meeting". It is incredible: incredibly concerning. The book sometimes defines key words chapters after their introduction. It refers readers to other chapters for more information on a subject, where the promised ideas are often not at all elaborated on. You could probably get caught in some infinite loop if you followed these directions. The writers do somewhat succesfully write in one voice, but only because there is a distinct absence of voice.

As an extension of the failed attempt at cohesiveness, each chapter is bound by a format which is entirely useless. The "key learning" section at the end of the chapter only sometimes succesfully summarises its ideas, and sometimes digresses into new domains without justification. The summaries are poorly written, too. Like, ChatGPT summaries. There are also very passive "taking action" and very abstract "pratical tips and tricks" sections. I'm unsure whether some cluelessly enthusiastic writer tacked these on after writing the book, or whether each contributor was forced to regurgitate their ideas in these forced forms. It sure seems like a gun was pointed at the head of whoever suffered through its creation. Anyway, I would recommend removing these sections entirely.

The real value of the book seems accidental. It was often in the brief stories of the boards, or in learning the (somewhat culty) industry of teaching policy governance. That being said, I did like the monitoring section. In conclusion, I think these thinkers should hold themselves to a higher standard, both in their thinking and final product.

Now onto some more specific reactions, because I do enjoy being thorough! For my readers' benefit, I have grouped critiques into two sections: for the general public, and for those familiar with policy governance.

General Public

Familiar with Policy Governance